Appeal 2006-1400
Application 10/649,128
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of Appellant’s
invention.
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Moore
in view of Spector.
Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Moore in view of Spector and further in view of Romero.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Romero in view of Moore and further in view of Spector.
Claims 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Moore
in view of Spector and further in view of Kumasaka or Romero in view of Moore,
Spector, and further in view of Kumasaka.
ISSUES
As noted above the issues for our consideration in this appeal are the
indefiniteness rejection of claim 8 and the obviousness rejections of claims 1-13.
In addition, we enter a new rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following are our findings of fact as to the scope and content of the prior
art and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter. Moore
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013